Greetings, all.
A few people posting here have asked for a few details regarding the campaign setting, or there have been a few points I might be able to clarify. I shall try to explain as best I can.
Do you have Caucasian, African, Hispanic, and Mongoloid dwarves in your game? Because if you don't, then I fail to see how you could confuse Game Term: Race, as pres man described it, with Real Term: Race.
We actually do have specific landforms and the nationalities therein; our game term is Nationality. This does not undermine your argument, though, as Race, as you state, has specific game terms.
Things like markets and trade only exist when there are laws in place to afford them some protection. When said laws are not in place, then it becomes a black market, and those kind of markets are rarely openly displayed.
Completely agreed. This was a, for want of a better word, gypsy market. The party were asked to investigate whether the market-goblins had destroyed a bridge, and had set up the new bridges to facilitate, support or subsidise trade. It was known of by the crown (or at least the leaders of the nearest city). It didn't have the support of the crown, nor did it pay taxes, but it was within an area that was specifically not governed, per se.
Are the skill mechanics for bluff and sense motive being used in this game? If they are, did the paladin in question roll a bluff and the goblin roll a sense motive for the lying about the purchasing of the potions?
Yes, and quite frequently. The goblin, I (privately) ruled, did not have grounds to suspect the duplicity, and was not 'entitled' to a roll.
How hard is it for someone to be considered evil in the setting? For example, would a bully that gives kids, that play with weird shaped dice, swirlies be considered evil, or does it take something a bit more aggressive?
Pres Man, I want to answer this question well, so I shall do so a little further on.
How common is the death penalty applied within the legal framework of the setting?
Interestingly, the nearest city is in political upheaval at the moment. Based on existing laws, then the death penalty is applied to murder, treason, and any crime whose severity pushes it into a similar category (arson, for example, may lead to deaths and loss of life, so it is a possible example).
What kind of prison system is involved in the setting?
There is an island off shore from the city in which the characters are based. Think Alcatraz / Azkhaban. The legal system is similar to our own, within the context of spells like Detect Lie. The Judicial system is based around, and provided by the Priesthood of the God of Law.
Everyone makes mistakes, and this paladin is not the quickest of cats (although he is very wise - Wis 18? - go figure...).
Maybe a message from his god saying 'Mal, you have been very naughty. You must undertake this quest or I will take away your divine powers!'. I think that would fit nicely. DM's call of course.
I think it is very fair to, AT THE VERY LEAST, strongly threaten to lose the paladin's powers. More on that in a moment.
His (the DM's) duty is to make it (alignment boundaries and references) clear to his players, so they will know the limits and will have to respect them.
I very much agree, and I want to give my opinion about alignments, below.
So the question goes to the DM, are items like Hand of the Mage considered unlawful within the kingdom the party is operating? Certainly within the RAW Hand of the Mage need not be evil, though Hand of Glory does require an evil spell.
Hand of the Mage is alignment neutral. While it is certainly perceived as being a distasteful item, there is no legal or moral ramification, apart from a social stigma. Hand of Glory requires an evil spell in the creation, so a Paladin would detect a trace of evil from it, albeit noting that it would emanate from the item.
So again is the possession of these things considered unlawful? DM? Let's hear what you have to say, your players don't seem to know something that a knowledge arcana should tell them.
The rolls made regarding this item, to my judgement, did not allow for the spells required to create the item, rather just to quantify their function.
These are my thoughts on alignment; you may not agree with them, but please at least consider them.
D&D is not the real world.
In the real world, we have a strong social undercurrent to ask why people act as they do, and often to justify their reasons for doing so. So often, we look for a reason, a factor, an ameliorating aspect that somewhat condones the actions of those who commit wrongs. This is one of my stronger opinions regarding modern, real world society, and I certainly respect those who disagree, but here it is: There are people who are downright evil. Not always, but often enough, and with enough zeal that it is a fair and accurate statement to call them by that strong name. Of course, and even more often, the real world has people who can truly be called good. Again, not always, but often enough that they are best described as good people. Simply, in the real world, there are both, and it would be a better place if we recognised that both types do exist, along the continuum of moral behaviour.
In D&D, there is evil, and there is good. As my old english teacher used to say, 'there is no drama without conflict', and D&D is a game about drama, conflict, action and interaction (among so many other things). In D&D, we need evil, just as much as we need good, and every alignment between. We need creatures to be evil, truly, stinkingly evil, so that the characters are, at some times, heroic and good.
To me, in D&D, alignment is a continuum along a moral (Good vs Evil) and ethical (Law vs Chaos) axis, and while a character must be placed in a category, there is room to move. Paladins are not flawless, druids are never completely neutral (but on average, they are), bards can obey laws, and blackguards can undertake a good act (though often self-servingly).
I think in D&D, alignments serve a purpose that is dramatic as well as moral, and that placing real-world analogies will often fail. As some have pointed out, here, what is considered legal, or moral (read: Good) is at the mercy of the prevailing culture, or at least the perceptions of the individuals within it.
However, paladins are paragons of virtue, and they balance, constantly, on the precipice of falling from grace.
Good, like any alignment, is defined by the majority; if an act is considered evil by the majority, then it is evil. There would have to be strong factors to condone the actions of the paladin; this is my, individual opinion. It is also, as confirmed by my previous post, considered the dominant opinion, albeit in the context of what replies seem to be real-world considerations.
The purpose of this entire encounter was two-fold: To place the characters in an ambiguous setting, legally, morally and ethically such that they would have the challenge of a race that is usually neutral evil, as Zambayoshi very correctly points out, but in this instance, were (by and large) not. This was further complicated by the fact that they were in a precarious legal setting, without protection of the crown, and with a second tier of complexity, that the city wanted the problem to go away. The city official with whom they spoke were happy enough that the goblins left, by any justifiable means.
The second purpose was to shadow the perceptions the humans have of goblins (which Raoul has expressed very well) in how the goblins perceive the kobolds within the gypsy caravan.
In many ways, the encounter was a very strong temptation; when you put a dwarven paladin in an environment of his racial enemy, there is temptation to sink into an axe into the nerest goblin, and in most D&D games, he would be right, justified and correct to do so; the dramatic purpose of a creature that is usually neutral evil is to be, usually, neutral evil.
The paladin follows an unusual morality, being that of a 'Law of the Wild', and I was very keen in character creation to see if the dichotomy of a paladin's goodness could co-exist with the harsh neutrality of a food-chain, dominant-submissive culture. It seems that the 'Law of the Wild' proved to be the stronger factor than the altruism of good.
Granted, if I were raoul, I would have argued his case differently. Having said that, I conclude thus:
While the paladin acted in a morally reprehensible, evil way that (and this is my opinion here, not a final decision regarding the character's fate) certainly justifies falling from grace, raoul played the character in an excellent manner, displaying the internal conflict of an irreconcilable dichotomy of belief.
I have excellent players. They are argumentative, pedantic, creative, brilliant, violent, introspective and wonderful.
Any DM would and should be happy to have them.
I shall return to watching.